zlacker

Peace could be achieved fairly easily if both sides said they want to live in peace. However only one does. I think that will change eventually.

>>tim333+(OP)
“Peace while continuing to seize land” is a peculiar-enough type of peace to not really qualify for simply “wants to live in peace” by many people’s definition.

>>ethanb+45
It's tricky but there have been attempts at a normal peace deal like the Camp David Summit. But then the Palestinians say no. So instead you get the other stuff you mention.

>>tim333+d9
Yeah, the “but first X did Y! But before that P did Q!” goes back thousands of years. All that to say it’s not as simple as “one side wants peace and the other doesn’t.” It’s very messy.

>>ethanb+hf
Yeah but ignoring history a bit if A and B say ok lets sign an agreement, do our own thing and not attack each other you get a kind of peace. If B says no A must be destroyed then you don't. It's not really a moral question of who's right and wrong so much as a practical agreement to move on.

>>tim333+Hs2
The recent Camp David Summit didn’t come to any agreement? And the Camp David Accords before then weren’t signed by the principals in this conflict.

>>tim333+(OP)
That is an unhelpful and incorrect view